1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to a judgement support system and method suitable for checking credit rating of clients in finance and circulation.
2. Description of the Related Art
A conventional judgement support system guides a user by predetermined rules which have been determined in accordance with the know-how of veteran users. As a judgement support system using rules, there is known a system using an artificial intelligence (AI) tool as described in "Development of Middle Software for Configuring Expert System", Hitachi Journal, Vol.72, No. 11 (1990-11), U.D.C. [681,32.06:159.95]: 681.322.071.3.06. This system uses an AI tool (merchandise name: ES/PROMOTE-DIAG) manufactured by Hitachi, Ltd., assignee of the present invention. An example of this system will be described with reference to FIG. 20. A judgement is inferred by using a knowledge base 2005 which stores rules written in a decision tree structure (Step 2001). During this inference, any inquiry necessary for the judgement is issued (Step 2003). An answer to the inquiry is supplied (step 2004). The final judgement is inferred and displayed (Step 2002).
A decision support system (DSS) is also used for supporting a user to decide a final judgement or evaluation. A DSS using rules for supplying comments is known as described in the article "Financing Judgement Support System", presented at the 12-th Software Lecture for IBM by a Foundation of Financial Information System Center (FISC).
With this system, as shown in FIG. 21, an investigation item menu is displayed (Step 2101). A user selects a desired investigation item (Step 2102). The selected item and case state are read to an inference unit, and an evaluation (comment type) is inferred by using a knowledge base 2105 which stores rules determined by the know-how of veterans (Step 2103). The user decides and inputs a final judgement (comment) (Step 2104). The investigation item menu is again displayed, and if there is another investigation item, the user repeats the above procedure.
A typical judgement practically performed will be described for the case of financing judgement.
Basic data for judgement includes, for example, financial statements presented by a client, supplement accounting books for the basis of the financial statements, ledgers such as of accounts receivable and payable for the basis of the supplement accounting books, and receipts. The user of the system investigates the financial statements, and thereafter investigates the ledgers such as of accounts receivable and payable presented by the client at an interview. If any ambiguity is found, the receipts are checked on site. There are many cases wherein an on-site investigation is made before an interview, an investigation is completed only by financial statements, or financial statements are presented at a later time. Generally, the order, priority, or the like of the investigation is dependent on each investigator.
With the judgement support system using ES/PROMOTE-DIAG explained with FIG. 20, it is necessary to describe rules for the investigation of financial statements, supplement accounting books, ledgers, and receipts. For example, if financial statements are first investigated and there is no ambiguity, then the receipts are investigated, or if there is any ambiguity, the supplemental accounting books are investigated. The user is therefore forced to investigate either the receipts or the supplemental accounting books in accordance with the investigation results of the financial statements, and is not permitted to investigate the financial statements after the receipts. The discretion of a user is limited only to answering a question pre-described in rules.
The system shown in FIG. 20 describes rules in the knowledge base 2005 in the form of a decision tree. Therefore, the following problems occur:
(1) It is not possible to investigate in the manner as a user desires. This system is not suitable for the judgement of the type that a final result is obtained from intuitive knowledge of a user through trial and error.
(2) From the same reason described in (1) above, this system is not suitable for the judgement of the type that determines a need of investigation basing upon data at a user, the location of a user, and the state of the location.
(3) Since a judgement of a user obtained from intuitive knowledge cannot be used only in a limited range, this system is not suitable for the judgement of the type which derives intuitive knowledge of a user from the total knowledge balance.
In the system shown in FIG. 21, although rules are used for judging each investigation, a user can select a desired investigation item from the investigation item list (Step 2101). In addition, a user is required to judge an evaluation (comment) (Step 2104). However, there is provided no guidance for determining an investigation method and judging an obtained evaluation in accordance with the investigation state. The following problems therefore occur:
(1) Unnecessary investigation may be made by a novice user because of no guidance to an investigation method.
(2) From the same reason of (1) above, an investigation item may be selected differently by users.
(3) A judgement may be made differently by users differently without any basis of total judgement criterion.